KCRag Forum

I feel this has enough significance to warrant its own thread. The big Mac Properties project at Main and Armour has returned, now down to 325 units (-60 from previous plans). Hufft is still the architect. No renderings yet, but I expect the massing will remain the same from the previous plans (so expect buildings of up to 10 floors on Main, 6 floors on Armour, and 3 on Baltimore).

This is the last project previously shot down due to the antics of KCTenants and others to return. You love to see it.
https://compasskc.kcmo.org/EnerGov_Prod ... 0acc1c4f08

Application shows they are still going for incentives

Great news, thanks for the update. Hopefully a better result this time around.

KC Tenants was opposed to this project even though it included rehabbed, "affordable" units on Baltimore, right? Would be poetic, or ironic or something -if unfortunate for some - if those are the 60 units that have been dropped from the new plan.

Which also is the case with the LuxLiving project on the Riverfront.

missingkc wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:35 pm KC Tenants was opposed to this project even though it included rehabbed, "affordable" units on Baltimore, right? Would be poetic, or ironic or something -if unfortunate for some - if those are the 60 units that have been dropped from the new plan.

Looks like Collison is saying that’s the case. Also saying they are just pursuing a rezoning if the area. No incentives.

The Chicago-based developer has filed a rezoning request for its property at the southwest corner of Main and Armour. It still calls for renovating the US Bank building and building two, mid-rise apartment buildings next to it.


Dropped from the original proposal however, is a plan to renovate the old New Yorker apartment building at 3521 Baltimore as affordable rentals. It also scraps building two smaller apartment buildings at Armour and Baltimore.

While the overall project has been reduced from 385 to 325 apartments, it still would be the largest residential development along the planned streetcar route.

https://t.co/UCB6IFqZx0

No affordable housing, no renovation of New Yorker, and less units overall.

Big W for KCTenants! Great job gang! You really showed them.

Fountains wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 am I agree with them partially on this but it seems like they are moving the goal posts:

https://twitter.com/KCTenants/status/15 ... J_dfg&s=19

Yes, this isn't the best example. As much as I like to dunk on KCT tactics, buying an existing building and renovating isn't as good as actually building more affordable housing - or any housing at all. The project as first proposed would have been fine, and we would have ended up with substantially improved units in the NYer building at affordable rates and now those units are either to be sold to someone else, maintain their dilappidated status or be renovated by MAC and turned into market rate.

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:25 am

Fountains wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:07 am I agree with them partially on this but it seems like they are moving the goal posts:

https://twitter.com/KCTenants/status/15 ... J_dfg&s=19

Yes, this isn't the best example. As much as I like to dunk on KCT tactics, buying an existing building and renovating isn't as good as actually building more affordable housing - or any housing at all. The project as first proposed would have been fine, and we would have ended up with substantially improved units in the NYer building at affordable rates and now those units are either to be sold to someone else, maintain their dilappidated status or be renovated by MAC and turned into market rate.

So, if incentives are taken off the table by the developers, as appears to be the mode here by MAC, then housing will be built more slowly causing demand to outpace supply and rents to grow at an astronomical rate. Next step by KCT is likely continued calls for public housing and rent control mechanisms.

Cratedigger wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:38 am

missingkc wrote: ↑Mon Oct 17, 2022 7:35 pm KC Tenants was opposed to this project even though it included rehabbed, "affordable" units on Baltimore, right? Would be poetic, or ironic or something -if unfortunate for some - if those are the 60 units that have been dropped from the new plan.

Looks like Collison is saying that’s the case. Also saying they are just pursuing a rezoning if the area. No incentives.

The Chicago-based developer has filed a rezoning request for its property at the southwest corner of Main and Armour. It still calls for renovating the US Bank building and building two, mid-rise apartment buildings next to it.


Dropped from the original proposal however, is a plan to renovate the old New Yorker apartment building at 3521 Baltimore as affordable rentals. It also scraps building two smaller apartment buildings at Armour and Baltimore.

While the overall project has been reduced from 385 to 325 apartments, it still would be the largest residential development along the planned streetcar route.

https://t.co/UCB6IFqZx0

Are they going for KCATA and not city? Why get a UR rezone otherwise?

I have long thought, and this may be KCT goal, that the city should be supplementing rent rather than having developers manage rent-controlled units.

In other words, the city would pay a portion of the market rate on an apartment directly to the property manager and the tenant would pay the rest.

Having the developers request incentives to build and then manage income verification seems upside down. This would release the developers to build to whatever the market demands.

There would have to be a limit on the number of low-income applicants based on funding and also the type of housing they could rent.

shinatoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:38 am I have long thought, and this may be KCT goal, that the city should be supplementing rent rather than having developers manage rent-controlled units.

In other words, the city would pay a portion of the market rate on an apartment directly to the property manager and the tenant would pay the rest.

Having the developers request incentives to build and then manage income verification seems upside down. This would release the developers to build to whatever the market demands.

There would have to be a limit on the number of low-income applicants based on funding and also the type of housing they could rent.

My guess is that property loss is a much bigger concern for landlords than loss of the actual rent. You can do $10K worth of damage to an apartment pretty quickly and, I imagine, this happens more often in lower income units than market rate. How do you mitigate this risk to make a lower income resident just as desirable as a full paying tenant?

alejandro46 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:53 am

Perfect.

shinatoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:38 am I have long thought, and this may be KCT goal, that the city should be supplementing rent rather than having developers manage rent-controlled units.

In other words, the city would pay a portion of the market rate on an apartment directly to the property manager and the tenant would pay the rest.

Having the developers request incentives to build and then manage income verification seems upside down. This would release the developers to build to whatever the market demands.

There would have to be a limit on the number of low-income applicants based on funding and also the type of housing they could rent.

Focusing only on demand side subsidy tends to spiral costs further. Healthcare and education are examples of this. Not saying there isn't a place for it, section 8 voucher reform to force more units to accept and make them easier to get... but that can only be half of the solution given supply constraint.

shinatoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:38 am I have long thought, and this may be KCT goal, that the city should be supplementing rent rather than having developers manage rent-controlled units.

In other words, the city would pay a portion of the market rate on an apartment directly to the property manager and the tenant would pay the rest.

Having the developers request incentives to build and then manage income verification seems upside down. This would release the developers to build to whatever the market demands.

There would have to be a limit on the number of low-income applicants based on funding and also the type of housing they could rent.

I agree I like this idea of supplementing rents. If I recall there is a housing program through HUD where you can get rental vouchers of sorts and maybe even money to buy a home. However the applicants must qualify to apply and there are rules governing the supplements to be continued to be paid.

A system like this might be something you could setup on a city/state/federal level. Obviously maintaining it is the trick from applications to the ongoing payouts. But a system that states things like you must remain employed, with gaps of no more that 6 months at a time, liable for property damage, which if cannot be paid by tenant the government steps in. Even have rules regarding criminal substance abuse charges and felonies, like other federal programs eligibility, to help provide assurances to property owners and developers to use a program like this for incentives and set aside affordable units. It would allow for them to look at a project with the ability to garner market rate rents from all units with the supplements.

So when are they looking to start on this?

UMKC Roo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 2:13 pm So when are they looking to start on this?

My guess is that if they get the necessary approvals, they will begin work probably mid to late next year

FlippantCitizen wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 12:38 pm

shinatoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:38 am I have long thought, and this may be KCT goal, that the city should be supplementing rent rather than having developers manage rent-controlled units.

In other words, the city would pay a portion of the market rate on an apartment directly to the property manager and the tenant would pay the rest.

Having the developers request incentives to build and then manage income verification seems upside down. This would release the developers to build to whatever the market demands.

There would have to be a limit on the number of low-income applicants based on funding and also the type of housing they could rent.

Focusing only on demand side subsidy tends to spiral costs further. Healthcare and education are examples of this. Not saying there isn't a place for it, section 8 voucher reform to force more units to accept and make them easier to get... but that can only be half of the solution given supply constraint.

This sounds like Section 8 sort of, right? There are some programs but always never enough money to meet overwhelming demand. It's a good idea when it works. Often unscruplous landlords discriminate against voucher holders too. Need good oversight and attorneys to help monitor and enforce laws.